M Guerrieri

To determine the prognostic significance of ambulatory blood pressure, we prospectively followed for up to 7.5 years (mean, 3.2) 1187 subjects with essential hypertension and 205 healthy normotensive control subjects who had baseline off-therapy 24-hour noninvasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Prevalence of white coat hypertension, defined by an average daytime ambulatory blood pressure lower than 131/86 mm Hg in women and 136/87 mm Hg in men in clinically hypertensive subjects, was 19.2%. Cardiovascular morbidity, expressed as the number of combined fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events per 100 patient-years, was 0.47 in the normotensive group, 0.49 in the white coat hypertension group, 1.79 in dippers with ambulatory hypertension, and 4.99 in nondippers with ambulatory hypertension. After adjustment for traditional risk markers for cardiovascular disease, morbidity did not differ between the normotensive and white coat hypertension groups (P = .83). Compared with the white coat hypertension group, cardiovascular morbidity increased in ambulatory hypertension in dippers (relative risk, 3.70; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 12.5), with a further increase of morbidity in nondippers (relative risk, 6.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.92 to 20.32). After adjustment for age, sex, diabetes, and echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy (relative risk versus subjects with normal left ventricular mass, 1.82; 95% confidence interval, 1.02 to 3.22), cardiovascular morbidity in ambulatory hypertension was higher (P = .0002) in nondippers than in dippers in women (relative risk, 6.79; 95% confidence interval, 2.45 to 18.82) but not in men (P = .91). Our findings suggest that ambulatory blood pressures stratifies cardiovascular risk in essential hypertension independent of clinic blood pressure and other traditional risk markers including echocardiographic left ventricular hypertrophy.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

The effects of circadian blood pressure (BP) changes on the echocardiographic parameters of left ventricular (LV) hypertrophy were investigated in 235 consecutive subjects (137 unselected untreated patients with essential hypertension and 98 healthy normotensive subjects) who underwent 24-hour noninvasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) and cross-sectional and M-mode echocardiography. In the hypertensive group, LV mass index correlated with nighttime (8:00 PM to 6:00 AM) systolic (r = 0.51) and diastolic (r = 0.35) blood pressure more closely than with daytime (6:00 AM to 8:00 PM) systolic (r = 0.38) and diastolic (r = 0.20) BP, or with casual systolic (r = 0.33) and diastolic (r = 0.27) BP. Hypertensive patients were divided into two groups by presence (group 1) and absence (group 2) of a reduction of both systolic and diastolic BP during the night by an average of more than 10% of the daytime pressure. Casual BP, ambulatory daytime systolic and diastolic BP, sex, body surface area, duration of hypertension, prevalence of diabetes, quantity of sleep during monitoring, funduscopic changes, and serum creatinine did not differ between the two groups. LV mass index, after adjustment for the age, the sex, the height, and the daytime BP differences between the two groups (analysis of covariance) was 82.4 g/m2 in the normotensive patient group, 83.5 g/m2 in hypertensive patients of group 1 and 98.3 g/m2 in hypertensive patients of group 2 (normotensive patients vs. group 1, p = NS; group 1 vs. group 2, p = 0.002).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis of a difference between men and women in the left ventricular hypertrophic response to diurnal variations of ambulatory blood pressure in essential hypertension. DESIGN: Non-invasive ambulatory blood pressure monitoring and echocardiography in untreated hypertensive patients and healthy normotensive subjects. SETTING: Community-based ambulatory population in tertiary care centers. PATIENTS: Two hundred and sixty hypertensive patients and sixty-three healthy normotensive subjects. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Patients with average daytime systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) falling by less than 10% during the night were defined as non-dippers, the others as dippers. RESULTS: In the hypertensive group, dippers and non-dippers did not differ, in either gender, in several covariates possibly affecting left ventricular structure, including daytime ambulatory blood pressure, prevalence of white coat hypertension, age, body mass index, family history and known duration of hypertension, funduscopic changes, diabetes, alcohol consumption and renal function. Left ventricular mass (LVM) did not differ between dippers and non-dippers in hypertensive men whilst in hypertensive women it was significantly lower in dippers than in non-dippers. This sex difference held for all quartiles of the distribution of mean daytime blood pressure. In hypertensive women there was an inverse correlation between LVM and the per cent reduction of SBP and DBP from day to night, but this relationship was absent in hypertensive men. Other indices of left ventricular structure differed between dippers and non-dippers in both genders, as did LVM. CONCLUSIONS: For any level of daytime ambulatory blood pressure, a reduction of SBP and DBP by less than 10% from day to night identifies a subset of hypertensive patients at increased risk of left ventricular hypertrophy only in the female gender. These data suggest that, compared with men, hypertensive women require a longer duration of exposure to high blood pressure levels during the 24 h to develop left ventricular hypertrophy.

BACKGROUND: In a previous analysis of the Progetto Ipertensione Umbria Monitoraggio Ambulatoriale we found a higher rate of cardiovascular morbid events among hypertensive nondippers than we did among dippers (5.86 versus 1.18 events per 100 person-years, P = 0.0002) for women, whereas the difference between the two groups was smaller and not statistically significant for men (4.15 versus 2.48 events per 100 person-years). These differences held in a multivariate analysis after adjustment for several confounders including average 24 h ambulatory blood pressure. In another analysis, the rate of occurrence of cardiovascular end-points was higher among nondippers than it was among dippers regardless of the definition of day and night (0600-2200 h and 2200-0600 h, awake and asleep, and 1000-2000 h and 2400-0600 h) and of the dividing line between dippers and nondippers (10 versus 0% day-night difference in blood pressure). OBJECTIVE: To test in a subsequent analysis based on a larger sample and a longer follow-up period, for both sexes, the prognostic value of a blunted diurnal rhythm of blood pressure. METHOD: We used the night: day ratio of ambulatory blood pressure, a continuous and normally distributed variable. RESULTS: A night: day systolic blood pressure ratio > 0.899 for men and > 0.909 for women (upper tertiles of distributions) identified a subset of subjects with greater than normal cardiovascular risk for any level of concomitant risk factors, wherease the hight:day diastolic blood pressure ratio was not statistically significant as an independent predictor. The excess risk for subjects in the upper tertile of the night: day systolic blood pressure ratio held after adjustment for several risk markers, including average 24 h ambulatory blood pressure. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that a blunted reduction in blood pressure from day to night predicts an increased cardiovascular morbidity at any level of concomitant risk factors including average 24 h ambulatory blood pressure. Nondippers can be defined in terms of a night: day ambulatory systolic blood pressure ratio > 0.899 for men and > 0.909 for women, regardless of the diastolic blood pressure profile.